Linguistics - Theory - Radford

Chapter. 1:

Grammar \s subdivided into:

Morphology: the study of how words are formed out of smaller units (morphemes) and the interpretation of those words.
Syntax: is concerned with the ways in which words can be combined together to form phrases and sentences, and the
interpretation of those phrases and sentences.
Grammar is the study of the principles which govern the formation and interpretation of words, phrases and sentences.

Competence you have grammatical competence when you have tacit (subconscious) knowledge of the grammar of your
language.

Performance the actual use of language in concrete situations (what you actually say or understand) -misproductions and
misinterpretations are performance errors.

Grammar is concerned with competence rather than performance (cognitive view: language = cognitive system)

I-language: the internalized -within the human brain mind- linguistics system which enables humans to speak and understand
their native language.

Traditional grammars concentrate on grammaticality (how to form grammatical phrases and sentences). Chomsky focuses
more on ungrammaticality (why certain types of structures are ungrammatical).

The native speaker's grammatical competence is reflected not only ¡n intuitions about grammaticality but also in
intuitions about interpretations.
Example: Sam loves you more than Jim (ambiguous)

Criteria; of adequacy: descriptive linguists invent/plan grammars of particular languages.

Descriptive adequacy: a grammar of a given language is descriptively adequate if it correctly describes whether any given
string (sequence) of words ¡n a language is or isn't grammatical, and also correctly describes what interpretation(s) the
relevant string has.
Theoretical linguists (Chomsky) invent/plan a theory of grammar: a set of hypothesis about the nature of possible and
impossible grammars of natural (human) languages.

A theory of grammar must satisfy the following criteria:

1.Universality: it should provide us with the tools needed to describe the grammar of any natural language
adequately. The ultimate goal of a theory of grammar is to develop a theory of universal grammar: (UG)
2.Explanatory adequacy: it should explain why grammars have the properties they do.
3.Restrictive: it should provide us with technical devices which are so constrained in their expressive power that
they can only be used to describe natural languages.
4.Learnability: it should provide grammars which are learnable by young children in a relatively short period of time.
5.Minimalism: it should be as simple as possible.

Innateness hypotheses: Chomsky says that the uniformity and rapidity of first language acquisition is to suggest that the
course of acquisition is determined by a biologically endowed innate language faculty (language acquisition program) - within
the brain, which provides children with a (genetically transmitted) algorithm (set of procedures) for developing a grammar,
on the basis of their linguistics experience (= speech input they receive). Evidence in support of the innateness
hypothesis (genetic guidance):
Species-specific: only human beings acquire a human language. It’s independent of human's general intelligence (everybody
learns to speak).
Uniformity: it suggests that children have genetic guidance in the task of constructing a grammar of their native language;
different speakers of the same language exposed to different input develop similar grammars. Rapidity: human beings
learn in a relatively short period of time, once the grammar spurt has started.

The child's linguistic experience is often degenerate (imperfect) since it is based on the linguistic performance of adult
speakers.
Language acquisition is an entirely subconscious and involuntary activity, and also unguided.
Children go through three basic stages during the process of language acquisition:
Single-word stage (12-18 months): children's utterances comprise single words spoken in isolation. There's no evidence
of
the acquisition of grammar in that children don't make productive use of inflections.
Productive use of inflections (around 18 months): children make productive use of inflections (¡.e, plurals) and start
producing elementary two and three word utterances. Here we find the first signs of acquisitions of grammar.
Steady stage (around 30 months): children have typically acquired most of the inflections and core grammatical
constructions used in English. They're able to produce adult-like sentences, (core grammar: all the parameters are fixed).

Creativity: Language Acquisition is not a purely imitative process, but rather an inherently creative process. We are
capable of producing and understanding not only sentences we have previously heard but also novel sentences which we have
never encountered before. Acquiring a grammar involves formulating a set of generalizations about how inflections are
used and how words are combined together to form phrases and sentences.

(UG is Universal grammar and it is made up of a set of principles and unfixed parameters that allow the child to develop a
grammar of any natural language.
Experience of language —> (UG (principles and parameters) — > grammar of language.

Universal principies
1.Structure-dependence: all grammatical operations are determined by the structure of the language (inversion,
wh-movement).
2.Endocentricity: all phrases have a head.
3.Extended projection: all sentences have a subject or all verbs take an external argument.
4.Embedding principle: all sentences can be embedded into another sentence.

Parameters: aspects of grammatical structure that are subject to specific language variations. They are always binary.
1.Null-subject parameter: does/doesn't allow finite verbs to have nuil subjects. English is a non-null subject
language.
2.Wh-movement parameter: does/doesn't allow wh-movement. English does.
3.Head position parameter: relative positioning of heads with respect to their complements (head-first or head-
last). English is a head-first language,

Parameter setting
Each of these parameters is inherently binary and the structural learning which the child faces involves parameter setting,
¡.e. determining which of the two alternative settings provided by U<5 is the appropriate one for each parameter in the
language being acquired.
There are two types of evidence to set these parameters:
Positive evidence: experience of the occurrence of some particular type of structure, for ex head first structures
(children use positive evidence only).
Negative evidence:
Direct: it comes from the correction of the child's errors by other speakers of the language or self-correction by other
speakers.
Indirect: non occurrence of certain types of structures.

Chapter 2:

All words in a language belong to a restricted set of grammatical categories.

A category is a class of expressions which share a common set of grammatical properties (=features).

We use the morphosyntactic evidence to know what grammatical category a word belongs to. 1)

Morphological evidence: Inflectional and derivational properties are morphological.

a- Inflection is a change in a word (cat-cats). The change is the S that shows it is a plural form. So, they are different
forms of the same word.
Nouns and verbs have distinctive inflectional properties. Nouns inflect for number (singular and plural forms).
Complications: irregular nouns (sheep), mass/non-count nouns (furniture), noun expressions which contain more than one noun
(car, door) where the head is the second noun (car doors).
Verbs have four inflected forms: past participle suffix, past tense suffix, the 3rd person singular present tense suffix, the
present progressive suffix. Complications: many verbs have irregular past or perfective forms which are not distinct from
the base form.
b- Derivation rneans that a word derives from another word (lucky-luckily). By adding the suffix LY, we change the
category of the word (adj-adv).
Particular derivational affixes can only be attached to words belonging to a particular category. For example, the negative
prefixes UN- and IN- can be attached to adjectives to form a negative adj. (happy-unhappy)

2) Syntactic evidence:
a- Different categories of words have different distribut ions (=different positions in a sentence/phrase).
Examples: No + noun
Can +verb
Adjectives modify nouns
Etc.
b- Substitution
This is a Syntactic test to determine the category of a word. You see whether the word in question can be substituted by a
regular noun, verb, prep., adj. or adv. Example:
"He is better at French than you"
(more fluent) adj.
"He speaks French better than you"
(more fluently) adv.

3) Functional categories and lexical categories

Functional Categories = Lexical Categories

words that carry info about number, gender, person, case, etc (test: antonym - contentive word)
They have a functional content. content words, they carry meaning, they
are descriptive

Determiners -only one before a INFLECTION (I/INFL)

noun
-restricted to modifying nouns (a +
singular)

Pronouns -inflection case

Auxiliaries -can undergo inversion

-can be negated by a following NOT

-can appear in sentence-final tags

Infinitive
particle TO
-dummy (=meaningless)
-can't be intensified by
RI6HT/STRAI6HT -requires a
verbal complement

-+ infinitive
-permits ellipsis of its complement
(ex. aux. should)

NOTE-1 Chomsky says that the INF.

TO belongs to the same category of
modals. He labelled this category
 Adjectives -more than one Preposition
TO -contentive
-not restricted -can be modified
by intensifiers
Nouns -do not inflect for case -takes a noun
expression as its
Verbs -require DO support complement
-require indirect -+ gerund
negation through the use of -doesn't
DO support
-require DO tags
Preposition FOR-can
Complementizers -FOR can't be intensified by
(fhat-if-for) straight/right. -can't be subject -+ ing
-a clause introduced by FOR can
function as a subject. -+ to infinitive Int. Adverbs HOW
WHEN/WHETHER
-IF can only introduce a
finite clause.
-can't introduce a clause
which ¡s used as the complement
of a preposition, -can be
Determiner THAT
-THAT can't be substituted substituted by another
det. -unreduced vowel -can
be used pronominally
-reduced vowel

4) Parsing
To parse is to analyze the grammatical structure of phrases and sentences. The first step is to provide the category of
each of the words in the expression (labelled bracketing).

5) Subcategorial features
They are those grammatical properties which are associated with a subset of the members of a given category.

a- There, are two different subclasses of noun:

Common; Nouns Proper Nouns
-can freely be modified by det. like THE.-typically denote names of people, places,
dates, rnagazines.
-the first letter is generally capitalized
-have unique reference (semantic
viewpoint)
-can't be modified by a det.

Both can be described in terms of a binary grammatical feature such as [ common] [ count]
[ plural].

b- Determiners [ Q] Referential determiners

-Quantifying determiners - this/that/these/those - [ Q]
many/much - [ Q]

c- Adverbs
They are a subclass of adjectives- quickly-[ ADVJ

d- Verbs
[ aspect/participle]
[ past]
[ AGR/3SG]
example: SOES [+V, -PART, -PAST, +ASR]

5) Cross-categorial features
Many gramrnatical properties are cross-categorial, because they extend across more than one category,
For example, verbs and adjectives share the morphological property that they alone permit direct UN* prefixation. (undo /
unafraid)

Nouns, adjectives, verbs and prepositions can be analysed as composites of just two binary grammatical features - nominal [
N] and verbal [ V] - they cross classify categories
Verb |W, -N]
Noun [-V, +N]
Adj. [+V, +N]
Prep. [-V, -N]

Supercateqory: f or example verbs and adjectives form a supercategory because they share the feature [+V]

Auxiliarles and verbs share the core features [+V, -N], but differ in respect of some other feature. Aux. are functors and
verbs are not.
Aux. [+V, -N, +F]
Vb. [+V, -N, -F] (F= functionality)

Each contentive category has a functional counterpart:

Lexical Categories Functional Categories
-N- [+N,-V,-F] -PRN- [+N, -V, +F]
-A - [+N, +V, -F] -D - [+N, +V, +F]
-V- [-N,+V,-F] -AUX. [-N, +V, +F]
-P- [-N, -V,-F] -C/I- [-N,-V,+F]

Within a feature-based theory, a grammatical category is a set of elements (group of words) which nave the same value(s)
[+ or -] for a given set of grammatical features [N, V, F]

Chopter 3:

Tree diagram or phrase marker: visual representation of the structure of phrases. The overall sentence is built up out of
constituents (i.e. syntactic units or structural building blocks) of various types. Each of the category labels in a tree
diagram is a different node (constituent) and the words are the leaves on the tree. Nodes at the bottom of the tree are
called terminal nodes and other nodes are nonterminal nodes. The topmost node is the root.

Forminq phrases and sentences:

Phrases and sentences are formed by a process called merger,

Merger: A process where two categories are joined together to form a new 'phrasal category'.

The phrase which ¡s formed is endocentric, because it's a projection of a head word. English ¡s a head - f irst language
because it positions heads before complements, but also a specifier - f irst language because it positions specifiers before
heads.
The result of each merger is a projection (phrasal expansion). The category label x-bar is used to designate an
intermediate x projection, i.e. to designate an x expression which is larger than x. And the category label XP denotes an
x
expression which is larger than x, but which doesn’t project into an even larger type of x expression. This category ¡s
called
maximal projection. (being xa noun, verb, preposition, etc).
> Sentences can be either CP or AgrS. (They are both maximal projection)

The merger operation which forms projection combines two categories together in a pair wise fashion, according to the
constituent structure principle: binarity principle
Binarity principle: All non-terminal nodes are binary branching.

Configurational relations:

> Any given pair of nodes contained in the same p-marker will be related by one of two different types of relation;
dominance (i.e. hierarchical/top-to-bottom ordering)and precedente (i.e. linear/ left-to-right ordering).

Confiqurational definition of the term constituent: " A set of words forms a constituent of category Z if the
terminal nodes carrying them are all dominated by the same Z node, and if there are no other terminal nodes
dominated by the relevant Z node."
Complementhood: A constituent X is the complement of a head H (and, by extension, of any H -bar or HP
constituent which is a projection of H) if X and H are sisters, and the mother of X ¡s a projection of H.
Specifierhood: A constituent Y is the specifier of a head H (and, by extension, of any H -bar or HP
constituent
into which H projects) if Y is the sister of H-bar and the daughter of HP.
Floating quantifier: a quantifier which does not immediately precede the expression which it
quantifies.

Constituent testing structure: constitu

See photocopy ent.

C-command:

> C-command is a structural relation between two categories. A constituent X c-commands a

constituent Y, ¡f the mother of X dominates Y, and X and Y, are disconnected.

C-command condition on polarity expressions: A polarity expression must be c-commanded by an affective

< Polarity expression: A word or phrase which has an inherent affective polarity, and is restricted to occurring
within the
scope of an affective constituent. (Polarity items: Any, ever, care a damn, lift a finger. Affective constituents:
neq. words:
no-nobody-not; interrogatives: if, whether and interrogatives in general; rf in conditionals and too as an
adverb ).
eg. Nobody will say anything.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
C-command condition on binding: A bound constituent must be c-commanded by an appropriate antecedent.

Anaphors (reflexives and reciprocals) fulfill this condition because they have the property that they can't be used
to refer directly to an entity in the outside world, so must be bound by an antecedent elsewhere in the same
phrase or sentence.

All constituents in a given structure are overt. However, syntactic structures may also contain empty
categories: (=covert=null) categories which have no overt phonetic form, and hence which are inaudible or
silent.

PRO Subjects

English is not a null subject language although it allows infinitives to have null subjects. Subjectless infinitive
clauses contain an understood null subject called PRO. It has the same grammatical properties as pronouns,
that's why it's called
PRO.
In a sentence such as: "We would like PRO to stay."
The null subject PRO is controlled by (refers back to) the subject we of the matrix (=containing=next
highest) clause or equivalently, we is the controller or antecedent of PRO. Verbs (such as like) which allow
an infinitive complement with a PRO subject are said to f unction as control predicates.

Semantic Evidence of the existence of PRO.

In traditional grammar it ¡s claimed that Subjectless infinitive clauses have an understood or implicit subject-
and positing a PRO subject in such clauses is one way of capturing the relevant intuition. The implicit subject
becomes explicit if the relevant clauses are paraphrased by a finite clause:

1)a- I am sorry [to have kept

you waiting]
b- I am sorry [I have kept
you waiting]
2)a- It is important [to carry your passport with you]
b- It is important [you should carry your passport with you]
3) a- Dumbo has promised [to come to my party]
b- Dumbo has promised [he will come
to my party] (covert PRO subject)

a) from the syntax of reflexive anaphors (¡.e. +self/selves forms such as myself/yourself , etc.) As examples such as the
following indicate, reflexives generally require a local antecedent.
They want [John to help himself]
*They want [John to help themselves]
local antecedent means "an antecedent contained within the same bracketed clause as the reflexive.

In a sentence such as: "John wants [PRO to prove himself]"

("himself" is co-referential to John) Reflexives require a local antecedent within its own bracketed clause, and this
requirement is satisfied in the sentence above if we assume that the bracketed complement clause has a PRO subject, and
that PRO is the antecedent of himself. Since PRO ¡n turn is controlled by John (i.e. John is the antecedent of PRO), this
means that himself 'is correferential to (i.e. refers to the same person as) John.

b) In relation to the syntax of predicate nominals (noun containing), nominal expressions used as the complement of a
copular (i .e. linking) verb such as be, become, remain, etc.
"John was my best friend."
The property of " being my best friend' 'is predicated of John.

Predicate nominals in copular constructions have to agree with the subject of their own clause in number,
They want their son [to become a millionaire/*millionaires] => clause- internal agreement requirement

Empirical evidence
=> one's own - the possessive one's requires a local antecedent.
=> lose one's cool - the possessor one's must agree with the subject of lose.
=> each other and together require a local antecedent.

Radford mentions three kinds of PRO:

a) Controlled PRO:
PRO ¡s controlled by the subject of the matrix clause. It refers back to the subject, which is the controller or
antecedent of PRO. The controller is in the same clause.
Verbs (such as like, want, etc) which allow an infinitive complement with a PRO subject are said to function as control
predicates.
Example:
"John wants [PRO to use his own car]"

b) Uncontrolled PRO:
PRO has no antecedent within the sentence containing it; instead, the reference of PRO is discourse-determined, i.e.
PRO denotes some specific individual or set of individuals who is talking, being talked to or being talked about in the
relevant discourse.
Example:
"[PRO kill himself]?! He hasn't got the guts!"
c) Arbitrary PRO:
PRO is not controlled within the sentence, it denotes an arbitrary individual and thus has an arbitrary reference.
Example:
"It's wrong [PRO to blame oneself for other people's misfortune]"

Ellipsis: A process by which a constituent is given a null phonetic form, but retains its grammatical and semantic
properties.

In the sentence: "He could have left, and [she e have stayed.], we can see:
1-This case is interpreted as an elliptical form of "She could have stayed." (e is an elliptical form of could)
2-The subject is in nominative case form: "She"
3-The perfective auxiliary have is in the uninflected infinitive form: this is because e (being an elliptical form of could)
has the same grammatical properties as could, so that e (like could) requires a complement headed by a word (like have)
in the infinitive form.
Cliticization: the process by which one word attaches itself to another serves to support the existence of a null
auxiliary. In the sentence analyzed above, the existence of a null auxiliary (elliptical form of could in this case) blocks the
cliticization of "have" onto "she".

Cliticization is only possible when a clitic (n't, 's, 've, 're, 'd) immediately follows the expression to which it cliticizes, i.e.
is
subject to adjacency condition, and is blocked by the presence of an ¡intervening constituent.
Example:
*I wouldn't let [you've done it]
I wouldn't let [you o have done it]
The first example is wrong because, as we can see in the second one, there is a null to, so the clitic does not immediately
follow the expression to which it cliticizes but, on the contrary, it is blocked by the presence of to.

An auxiliary occupies the head I position of IP. Finite verbs occupy the head V of a VP complement. When

INFL is unfilled, the tense and the agreement properties of the head V of VP percolate up to INFL.

Have can occupy two positions in the sentence.

a)the head I position of a VP (auxiliary)
b)the head V position of a VP complement of an unfilled INFL.

Sentences containing (a finite form) perfective have are tagged by have, whereas sentences containing ( a finite form of )
causative have are tagged by do.
a) [IP She I has VP gone to Paris, hasn't she?]
The head I position of IP is filled by the perfective auxiliary has, and so the tag contains a copy of this auxiliary.

b) [IP She I VP has her hair styled to Paris, doesn't she?

The head I position of IP is unfilled and hence contains no meaning-bearing constituent), and so can only be tagged by the
dummy auxiliary does (which carries the same present-tense feature as the unfilled I constituent in the main clause.)

Arguments: expressions which typically denote the participants in the activity or event described by a verb.
Adjuncts: expressions providing additional information about the relevant activity/event. e.g. its location, the time at which
it took place, the manner in which it took place.

An IP-adverb is an adverb which is positioned internally within IP (e.g.

certainly) A VP-adverb is an adverb positioned internally within VP (e.g.
completely)

In the sentence: "They certainly have both completely ignored her."

The VP-adverb completely attaches to the V-bar ignored her (V-bar adjunct). The IP-adverb certainly expands the I-bar
have both completely ignored her into the extended I-bar certainly have both completely ignored her (I-bar adjunct);
adverbial adjuncts, first merge with intermediate projections like V-bar and I-bar); and secondly they serve to expand a
category of a given type into an extended V-bar.

If we analyze:
A: What did they do?
B: * certainly ignored her
.completely ignored her
The first string is wrong because certain/y is an IP-adverb (and adverb which is positioned internally within IP), so it
modifies the whole IP, not just the VP. Completely is a VP-adverb, so the Second string is correct, because the VP-adverb
is positioned internally within VP.

Verbs like know/hear/let/watch/see select an IP complement headed by the null infinitive particle O, whereas verbs like
expect/judge/report/consider/want;etc. select an IP complement headed by to.
Example:
I heard [him O speak]
I expect [him to speak]

Cliticization is disallowed in " I wouldn't let [you have done it]" because the bracketed infinitive complement is an IP headed
by the null infinitive particle O between 'you' and "have" which blocks cliticization.

Economy Principle: "derivations and representations are required to be minimal [as economical/short as possible] with
no superfluous steps in derivations and no superfluous symbols in representations".

An example for this can be the null complementizers: Null complementizers don't really exist at least in this framework.
Evidence:
•No-contentless-projections constraint. (CP is a contentless projection)
•Coordination: complementizerless clauses cannot be coordinated with clauses containing an overt complementizer such
as that.
*John said [Peter left] and [that Bill kissed Mary]
• Preposing: we can prepose the subject of a clause introduced by a complementizer like that.
5he thinks [that money can buy happiness]
*Money she thinks [that can buy happiness]
• Cliticization: we should expect the intervening null-complementizer O to block cliticization. The fact that cliticization is
possible suggests that the CP analysis can't be right and that the more economical IP analysis is more plausible.
Who do you think's helping him?

If we analyse:
*John said that Peter left and Bill helped Mary.
It proves that null complementizers don't exist. This sentence is ungrammatical because we have coordinated a CP with
an
IP violating the condition that only alike constituents can be conjoined. If the null complementizer really existed as a
category, the sentence would be grammatical.

If we analyse:
Tom she believes Stole the money Vs *Tom she believes that stole the money
The second sentence is ungrammatical because the subject cannot be extracted out of CP.

If we cnalyse:
"Students always enjoy this class."
We can say that all nominals are projections of a head Determiner. This implies that the bare noun Students is not simply
an
N, but rather a DP, headed by a null determiner.

Semantic properties of the nuil determiner:

The noun sugar in "Sugar is sweet" has a generic interpretation, and hence is interpreted as meaning "sugar in general". In "I
like sugar", the noun sugar has an existential (= partitive) interpretation that can be paraphrased as "some sugar" ("I like
some sugar in my coffee").

Grammatical properties (i.e. features) of the null determiner:

"LINGUISTS often contradict themselves,"
The null determiner in this sentence carries quantificational, person and complement-selection properties.
a)Person properties: the bare nominal linguists can only bind a third person reflexive like themselves and can only be
 tagged by a third person pronoun like they (don't they?). So, it is a third person determiner.
b)Complement-selection properties: the null determiner can only be used to quantify a singular mass noun or a plural count
noun as in the example above.

In expressions such as "We syntacticians", pronouns have the categorial status of determiners.
Pronouns are determiners used without a complement. Nominals are projections of a head determiner constituent, they
can
be used prenominally as in "We syntacticians" or pronominally as in "We don't....".

Non argument nominals are N-projections.(nominals in vocative, predicative or exclamative

use.) Ex: Do you see it, doctor? (vocative)
Dick is head of department. (predicative position)
Poor fool! (exclamative)

Pronominal attributive adjectives don't overtly inflect for number but there are exceptions like the adjectives numerous
and various, which carry an intrinsic plural feature by virtue of their meaning.
They serve as the specifier of an empty functional category F which is positioned between D
and N.

Chapter 5:

Grammar is a generative system which produces sentences. The derivation of a sentence (i.e. the series of operations by
which it is formed) involves a set of linguistic operations which generate (i.e. produce) syntactic structures.
These linguistic operations are: selection, merger and spell out. By an operation of selection, an individual selects a lexical
item from a lexicon, The numeration is the set of lexical Items selected from the lexicon. Then by the process of merger,
constituents are combined together in a pairwise fashion to form a phrase Structure tree. (with each word in the tree
comprising a set of phonetic, semantic and grammatical features.)
Spell out is the point at which the phrase structures generated by the process of selection and merger feed into two
different components (interface levels) - a PF component which processes their phonetic features and an LF component
which processes their grammatical and semantic features ( linguistics aspects of the meaning of the sentence).
They are called interface levels because they are the levels at which the grammar interfaces (i.e. connects) with other
Systems which lie outside the domain of the theory of grammar.
The PF serves as input to the articulatory-perceptual system and LF serves as input to the conceptual-intentional system.

The phonetic, grammatical and semantic properties of words can be described in terms of sets of features.

Principle of full interpretation: requires that PF representations should contain only phonetic features, and that LF
representations should only contain semantic features.

A derivation which satisfies this requirement converges and one which does not crashes.

Some grammatical features(e.g. the person/number/gender-features of pronouns like she) have semantic content and so are
interpretable (at LF), whereas others (e.g. the case-features of pronouns and the inflectional features of non-finite verbs)
are uninterpretable and so must be erased in the course of the derivation.

Words carry three sets of grammatical features: head-features (which determine their intrinsic grammatical properties),
Specifier-feafures (which determine the kinds of complement they can take) and complement-features(^N\\\c\\ determine
the kinds of complement they take).

Specifier - and complement-features are uninterpretable and so must be erased by a process of checking. Only
interpretable features survive at LF after checking.
Checking domains: head-specifier ; Specifier head.
In structures containing a phrasal Specifier or complement, projections carry the same head-features as their heads.

The specifier-features of as finite nonauxiliary verb percolate from V to INFL, so that the head features of the subject
can be checked against the specifier-features of INFL (inherited from the nonauxiliary verb). This percolation also takes
place ¡n order to ensure that INFL has tense properties and so is interpretable at LF.
Determiners like the (and the null quantifier o) carry fixed person properties (in that they are third person determiners),
but variable number and case properties, so that the is third person nominative plural in: "The students are revolting.", but
third person objective singular in: "Sack the Dean!".
One way of ensuring that determiners and attributive adjectives agree in number with the nouns they modify would be to
suppose that the number-features carried by the noun percolates up to the head F constituent of the PF containing the
adjective, and from there to the head D constituent of DP.

PRO carries null case, and its case is checked by infinitival to (so that PRO carries a null-case head-feature, and infinitive
to carries a null-case specifier-feature).

The infinitival IP in ECAA structures, is headed by a caseless infinitive particle, and the objective case carried by the
infinitive subject is checked by an immediately preceding transitive matrix verb or complementizer.

The category labels carried by terminal nodes (i.e. heads) in tree diagrams can be eliminated if the relevant categorial
properties are described in terms of head-features. The same happens with nonterminal nodes labels.

Chapter 6:
Head movement involves movement from one head position to another. If s also called head-to-head movement:

Auxiliary inversión in questions in English involves an I movement operation whereby an auxiliary moves from INFL to
Comp...(text missing)

serves to fill COMP. If there isn’t any auxiliary we have to use the do-support. It originates in INFL because it requires a
VP complement and then it raises to COMP
An inverted auxiliary leaves behind a trace (i.e. a silent copy of itself) in the INFL position out of which it moves when it
moves to COMP. The trace has the same grammatical features as the auxiliary. The moved constituent is the antecedent
of its trace and it binds the trace (i.e. determines its properties). It c-commands the empty trace. The moved auxiliary and
its empty trace form a chain. The antecedent is the head of the chain and the trace is the foot

Finite verbs in Early Modem English (EME) could move from V to INFL by an operation of V movement (as is shown by word-
order facts ¡n negative sentences like I care not for her), but this kind of movement is generally no longer possible ¡n
Modem Standard English (MSE).
I movement and V movement are two different reflexes of a more general head movement operation, and head movement ¡s
subject to the head movement constraint which requires it to apply in a successive cyclic fashion.

Verbs in EME had strong agreement-features (by virtue of the relatively rich agreement inflections they carried) and
consequently allowed a null pro subject, whereas their counterparts in MSE have weak agreement-features (by virtue of
their impoverished agreement morphology) and so do not license a pro subject.
The strong agreement features of finite verbs in EME were checked by movement of the verb (along with its features)
from V to INFL (this movement is motivated by considerations of greed, i.e. by the selfish desire of the verb to check its
own morphological features), whereas the weak agreement features of finite verbs in MSE are checked by attraction (i.e.
percolation) of the relevant agreement features from V to INFL (with the verb, itself remaining in situ in the head V
position of VP).
Movement and attraction are two different reflexes of a common feature movement operation which moves grammatical
features from one constituent to another, and which in the case of movement also has the effect of pied-piping the
phonetic features of the head along with its grammatical features.

Syntax of negation:
In EME the negative adverb not was positioned between the auxiliary and the verb in clauses containing a finite auxiliary:
You may not deny it.
In auxiliariless finite clauses, the main verb was positioned in front of the negative not. He heard not that.
In MSE the negative particle not functions as a syntactic head NEG(ation) which projects into a NEGP (negation phrase)
constituent.
Not can attract the head-features of (the head verb of) its complement, but not the specifier-features of a finite verb,
because it is an A-bar head, i.e. a nonargumental head which can't have an argument as its specifier and hence can't
carry
subject features. That's why the sentence She not trusts him is ungrammatical, because the [3SNom] specifier-features of
trusts can't be checked, and so the derivation crashes at LF. (page 232)
N’t differs from not in that not is a free form whereas n't is a bound form which can only attach to other bound
forms.
Possessive have in some varieties of English (like Baa Baa. Black Sheep) can behave like an auxiliary. It originates in the
head V position of VP and from there can raise to INFL. It is the last vestige of V movement.
Possessive have can be directly negated by n’t but not by not. This is because have can serve as a bound form and hence can
adjoin to the bound negative n ‘t (but not to the free form nof). More generally, adjunction can only adjoin one bound form
to another, and cannot target a free form like not.

All head movement may involve adjunction to an affix, so that V-to-I movement involves adjunction of V to an abstract
(present or past) tense affix T: one consequence of this is that clauses are projections of a tense affix T, an hence have
the status of TP (= tense phrase) constituents. T is a weak affix in MSE, but was a strong affix in EME. Weak affixes have
the property that they check grammatical features, whereas strong affixes must be attached to a set of phonetic features.
The requirements of the weak T ¡n MSE are satisfied by merging an auxiliary with T, by attraction of the tense/agreement-
features of a non auxiliary verb to T or by movement (where possessive have has idiosyncratic pied-piping properties) . By
contrast, the requirements of the strong T in EME are satisfied either by merger with an auxiliary, or by movement of a
nonauxiliary verb to adjoin to T.

Questions are CP constituents headed by a C node containing a strong Q affix; the requirement for Q to be attached to a
set of phonetic features is satisfied in main clauses by adjoining a preposed (auxiliary or nonauxiliary) verb to Q,
(remember do Support. sometimes the only way to f ill COMP is by generating the auxiliary do in INFL and then raising it
to COMP) and in complement clauses by merging the complementizer if with Q.

Grammars contain three different types of movement operations:

-PF movement only phonetic features move (this occurs in the PF component)
-Attraction only grammatical features are adjoined to T (this occurs at LF)

(Syntactic) Movement both phonetic and grammatical features are adjoined to T and to Q (this occurs in the syntactic
component, prior to spellout)

Chapter 7:

Operator movement applies to expressions which contain an operator of some kind (negative or interrogative) and they
move from complement position to specifier position.

Syntax of interrogative operators:

Wh-questions like What did you say? involve moving an interrogative wh-operator like what? into the specifier position
within CP, and the moved wh-operator leaves behind a trace in the position it moves out of.

Movement of operators into spec-CP is motivated by Lasnik's principle of enlightened self-interest which says that
constituents move in order to satisfy the morphological requirements of other constituents, and operator movement
serves to check the [wh] specifier-feature carried by the question affix Q which heads interrogative clauses. Such an
analysis predicts that in multiple wh-questions, only one of the wh-operator expressions will move to spec-CP, and the
shortest movement principle also called the minimality condition (-a constituent should move the shortest distance
possible in any single movement operation) determines that it is the nearest wh-operator expression which moves.

(In consequence of the economy principle) movement operations affect the minimal constituent which will be enough to
check the features triggering their movement. In simple questions like What did he say? The. wh-operator what is moved
on its own, but movement of what alone in sentences like *What did he give reason? would violate Chomsky's chain
uniformity principle (= a chain should be uniform with regard to its phrase structure status, i.e. both the head and the
foot of the chain must nave the same structure), and in consequence the complement of what(\.e.. the noun reason) has to
be pied-piped along with what, so deriving What reason did he give?

Preposition stranding constraint:

This constraint against preposition stranding applies to formal styles of English. It says that a preposition can't be
stranded (separated from its complement whom)'. With whom was Tom dancing? * Whom was Tom dancing with?

Huang's condition on extraction domains (which allows extraction only out of complements) prevents what from being
extracted out of a subject expression in sentences like *Which country did you say the capital of was bombed during the
war?, and requires the whole subject constituent to be pied-piped along with which, so deriving The capital of which
country did you say was bombed during the war?

Syntax of embedded questions in Belfast English:

These allow the head C position of CP to be filled either by an inverted auxiliary or by the complementizer that, so deriving
sentences like I asked which Street did he live in and l asked which Street that he lived in.
Inversion takes place in non interrogative clauses from which an interrogative operator has been extracted, e.g. in
sentences
like Who did he hope would he see? This could be accounted for by positing that operator movement applies in a successive
cyclic fashion (moving an operator expression into the nearest spec-CP position above it on each of its movements), and
by
positing that a C which has an interrogative specifier is a strong (affixal) head, and hence can trigger auxiliary inversion.

Standard English:
C is always filled by a null interrogative complementizer o in Standard English complement-clause questions, with spec-
CP being filled either by merging the adverb whether with C-bar, or by moving an operator expression from some
position within TP into spec-CP.
Whether is directly generated in spec-CP, and thus merges with C-bar (there's no movement): He asked [whether I was
leaving]
Standard English doesn't allow auxiliary inversion in embedded wh-questions, because there is a null complementizer o which
merges with Q. This satisfies the requirement for Q to be affixed to an appropriate host, and thereby blocks any form of
auxiliary inversion:
[She asked [what John had done ]]
Operator movement applies in a successive cyclic fashion, and this accounts for why wh-operators can' t be extracted out of
wh-questions (i.e. why sentences like *How do you wonder whether he is feeling? are, ungrammatical), since successive cyclic
movement is blocked by the fact that whether occupies spec-CP in the embedded clauses, and long (one-step) movement
violates the shortest movement principle.

Subject questions like Who helped him? •

Chomsky claims that such sentences are CPs headed by the question-affix Q, and the subject who is in spec-TP, with the
wh-feature of who being attracted to Q. Chomsky's CP analysis would enable us +o provide a unitary characterization of
questions as CPs with an interrogative Q head. The [wh] feature of Q is checked by attraction, with the [wh] head-feature
of who adjoining to the C node containing Q, thereby enabling the [wh] feature of Q to be checked and erased.
Q is only a strong affix when the CP headed by Q has an interrogative operator-specifier of its own. That’ s why Q is weak
here and doesn't trigger auxiliary inversion or do-support.
However, there's an alternative characterization of questions as clauses with an interrogative specifier, and this would al
low
us to posit that subject questions like Who helped him? are TPs which are questions by virtue of the fact that they have an
interrogative specifier (= who). In questions such as What did you say?, movement of what into spec-CP would be
motivated
by the need to generate a structure with an interrogative specifier.

The interrogative specifier analysis would entail positing that yes-no questions like Is it raining? contain an abstract yes-no
question operator Op in spec-CP. There are significant parallels between the syntax of such questions and whether
questions which make it plausible to posit that they contain a null-operator counterpart of whether
a. yes-no questions can be introduced by whether when they are transposed into reported speech.
b. Root inversion questions resemble whether questions in that in both cases yes/no are appropriate answers.
c. Main-clause yes-no questions can be tagged by or not in precisely the same way as complement-clause
whether questions.
Embedded yes-no questions headed by the complementizer if also have a null yes-no question operator-specifier (//merges
with Q), and this assumption accounts for the fact that operators can't be extracted out of /^question clauses (*How do
you wonder if he is feeling?), since successive cyclic movement is blocked by the null operator and long movement is
blocked by the shortest movement principle.

If and o are the two interrogative complementizers in English.

Nonoperator questions: They don't contain an interrogative operator and they don't show auxiliary inversion or wh-
movement. Besides, they can't contain polarity Items such as any because polarity items must be c-commanded by a
(negative, interrogative or conditional) operator. Examples: You're leaving? He said what? You've ordered the drinks?.
They can be analysed as TPs headed by an interrogative T, or perhaps as CPs headed by a question particle Q which is
weak by virtue of lacking an interrogative operator in spec-CP.
Chapter 8

VP - internal subject hypothesis -> subjects originate in spec-VP and are raised into spec-TP in ail but a few
constructions - e.g. expletive structures. This raising is called subject-to-subject raising or subject raising,

Expletive there has the categorial status of a pronominal determiner (spec-TP), since it can occur in sentence tags and the
auxiliary is/are can be moved in front of it (into COMP) in yes-no questions structures.
If we analyse sentences like: "There is someone waiting for you" and its nonexpletive counterpart "Someone is waiting for
you", we see in both "someone" originates in spec-VP; in the first, "there" serves as the specifier of the TP headed by "is"
and someone remains in situ as the specifier of the VP headed by waiting. In the second, "someone" undergoes subject
raising.

Evidence that subjects originate in spec - VP

* cliticization: ex. We wanna help you. It was claimed that to couldn't be cliticized onto want because of the presence
of a null-case PRO subject in spec-TP but if the PRO subject originates as spec-VP, the cliticization is possible and the
sentence grammatical.
"We wanna PRO help you."

*control structures: a moved constituent leaves behind a trace in any position out of which it moves. In : "He certainly has
compromised himself." the reflexive himself has as its local c-commanding antecedent the trace of he ;
"[TP He certainly has [VP t compromised himseif.1

* predicate nominals: following the same idea the predicate nominals have to agree in number with the 'trace subject f in
spec-VP:
“[TP They probably will [VP^ become millionaires.1

* quantifiers: when the quantifiers are separated from the subjects they quantify, they are referred as floating
quantifiers Following the idea above these quantifiers modify the trace of the moved subject: "[TP They are [VP both
t helping her.]

* idioms: (string of words which form a unitary constituent with an idiosyncratic interpretation) in an idiom like "All hell
broke loose", the choice of subject, verb an complement is fixed (clausal idiom). This type of idioms allow auxiliaries to
be freely inserted between the subject and the verb. To say that subjects originate in spec-VP position helps us to
account for the fact that the unitary string "all hell.......break loose" can be separated by an auxiliary. In the sentence
"All hell will break loose" , the QP "all hell" originates in spec-VP as the subject of the V-bar constituent "break
loose" and is then raised across the auxiliary "will" into spec-TP, where it becomes the subject of the T-bar.

Argument structure

There is strong semantic evidence in support of the VP internal subject hypothesis relating to argument structure. The
arquments (expressions denoting a participant in a relevant actiyity or event) of a verb/predicate (expression denoting an
activity or event) are its subject and complement. The complements of verbs are positioned inside V-bar whereas their
subject are position outside V-bar, They originate in spec-VP and typically raise to spec-VP, complements are said to be
internal arguments and subjects external arguments. Arguments may play different semantic roles in relation to a
predicate. They are called thematic roles,

Basic thematic roles;

Theme or patient-> entity undergoing the effect of some action.
Agent/causer -> instigator of some action.
Experiencer -> entity experiencing some psychological State,
Recipient/possessor/locative -> entity receiving/possessing some entity.
Goal -> entity towards which something moves.

Arguments are assigned a theta-role by the predicates via merger with a lexical category, the complement of a verb is
theta-marked directly by the verb, and its subject is theta marked by V-bar, i.e. verbs directly theta-mark their
complements but indirectly theta-mark their subject.
In a sentence such as : "He throw the bal!", the verb throw will be merged with the DP the hall to form the V-bar throw
the ball, here the DP the hall is assigned the theta-role of THEME argument of throw. The V-bar throw the ha/t is merged
with pronominal determiner he, here he is assigned the theta-role of ASENT argument of throw the bal!.

Theta marking serves us to account for the fact that subjects originate in spec-VP, because if subjects were directiy
generated in spec-TP. we couldn’t say that the thematic role of the subject is determined by V-bar, And that auxiliaries
play no role in theta marking, because they are functional categories and theta-roles are assign only by lexical categories

Subjects raise to satisfy the predication principle, which requires that syntactic predicates (i.e. V-bar and T-bar)
should have subjects. And to check their own strong case-features (checking theory). [PRO doesn't raise to spec-TP
because it has null case, which is weak and doesn't trigger movement,1

Case-checking

Features can be checked via: specifier-head relation; adjunction of one head to another; and attraction (i.e. by adjunction of
a feature to a head).

Nominative pronouns check their case-features via spec-head relation, but ¡n the presence of contracted auxiliaries this
checking is done by adjunction. Because contracted auxiliaries are affixal heads which are only Pf objects if another head
attaches to them and in this case the other head is the subject pronoun.

The null case of PRO is checked by attraction. (i.e. by percolation of the relevant null-case-features from the PRO subject in
spec-VP to the infinitive particle to which heads TP).

The objective case carried by the subject of an ECM infinitive complement is checked by attraction to a matrix transitive
head. In the sentence: "They expect him to win", the objective-case-feature carried by him is attracted to expect.

The case properties of subjects are checked by attraction in existential structures with, expletive there. In a sentence like:
"There are students waiting for you". the indefinite nominal students carries partitive case , that partitive case is a weak
case which is cheeked by attraction, so that the relevant partitive case-feature percolates up from the indefinite nominal
The expletive "there" carries only nominative case-feature (it doesn't carry agreement features -number, person,
gender-.) and is inserted in spec-TP in order to satisfy the strong nominative-case-feature carried by a finite T-node.

Raising predicates and control predicates:

verbs such as: seem, appear, happen, turn out are called subject raising verbs, they allow the subject of an
embedded infinitive complement to be raised up to become subject of the raising verb.
Verbs such as: try, decide, plan, choose, hope, threaten, intend manage, needs, promises, like, want, expect
and
have (to do sth) are called control predicates, they may take an infinitiye complement with a controlled PRO
subject.

Differences between subject raising verbs and control verbs:

Subject raising verbs Control verbs

•don't theta mark their subject theta mark their subject

•take an infinitival complement without PRO
» don't have restriction in subject choice
« allow an expletive there subject
take an infinitiyal complement with PRO subject
imposes restriction in subject choice-subject:
an expression denoting an entity capable of
rational thought.
don’t allow an expletive there subject

Theta criterion: Each argument bears one and only one theta-role, and each theta role is assigned to one and only
one argument.

'He seems to enjoy syntax", he bears the theta role of experiencer assigned by enjoy and then raises to spec-TP for
reasons of greed to check its own nominative features.
He tries to PRO enjoy." he bears the theta role of agent assigned by try and PRO bears the theta role of experiencer
assigned by enjoy.

passivization:

There are four main properties which differentiate passive sentences from their active counterparts:
Passive sentences generally require the auxiliary be
Lexical verbs in passive sentences are in the n-participle form.
Passive sentences may contain a by-phrase in which the complement of by seems to play essentially the same
thematic
role as the subject in the corresponding active sentence.
The expression which serves as the complement of an active verb surfaces as the subject in the corresponding
passive
construction.

Distinctive characteristics of passiye participles:

they theta mark their complements but not their
subjects. They are intransitive.

UTAH: maintains that there is a uniform mapping between thematic structure and syntactic structure. Each theta-
role assigned by a particular type of predicate is canonically associated with a specific syntactic position.

Passivized arguments originate as complements of passive participles and are raised up to become first the subject of
the passive participle and then the subject of the passive auxiliary be.

Evidence:
Floating quantifiers: "The students were all arrested."
If we assume that a floating quantifier modifies the trace of a moved subject, we can say that the quantifier all
modifies the trace in spec-VP of the moved DP the students. So the Students becomes the subject of the passive
participle arrested before becoming subject of the auxiliary be.

Expletive structures: "There were several students arrested".

The QP several Students originates as the complement of the verb arrested. Since it is positioned immediately in
front of the passive participle arrested, and it moves into (and remains in) spec-VP and hence serves as the subject of
arrested. (the spec-TP position is occupied by there}

In infinitival passives such as: "He is thought to admire her", the passive subject he originates as the subject of the verb
admire in the infinitive complement, and is raised up to become first subject of to and finally subject of is.

'Passivization and raising are different manifestations of a single argument movement operation: A movement. This has the
effect of moving a constituent from one argument position into another (more specifically, from a subject or complement
position into a subject position.)
I-bar movement is the movement of an argument to a non argument position (moving maximal projections into a non subject
position. ex : operator movement

The complement position can only be created by merger with a head. A specifier position can be created by merger or by
movement,

I movement is constrained by the following US principles: the C-command condition on binding, the shortest movement
principle, the theta-criterion and the principle of greed.

A movement should involve movement from a lower to a higher position, this satisfies the c-command condition on binding
.
A movement should apply in a successive cyclic fashion, this satisfies the shortest movement principle.
The A movement passivization satisfies the theta criterion because as passive participles theta-mark their complement but
lot their subject, a DP will be assigned its theta role in cornplernent position and they will be raised into subject position
having the same theta role and not receiving another one.
The A movement passivization is triggered by greed, in this case the requirement of a nominative pronoun to move into a
position where it can check its nominative case-feature.

Chapter 9

VP shell analysis:

In structures where we find three-place predicates, the VP shell analysis enables the double binary structure analysis,
which claims that VPs have a complex structure, comprising an inner VP core and an outer vp shell, and that some agentive
arguments originate within the outer vp shell, while other (e.g. TH.EAAE) arguments originate within the inner VP core,

The following structures containing different kinds of predicates can be accounted for in terms of the VP shell analysis or
he light verb analysis:

Ergative predicates
!. Transitive phrasals
i. V+DP+PP
k Ditransitive predicates
¡. Resultative predicates
i, Three-place predicates with clausal complements
'. Structures with impersonal "it'! +verb +to sby + that clause
í. Three-place predicates: verb + DP + clausal complement
'. Object-control predicates
0.Monotransitive predicates
1.Unergative predicates
2.Unaccusative predicates

The VP shell analysis involves the presence of an affixal, abstract, agentive light verb. This light verb can have three
different semantic properties: causative (it can be paraphrased "We made + roll the ball down the hill."), performative (he
performed the act of ....) or eventive (with much the same sense as happen).
!n this type of analysis a lexical verb merges with its complement form in a a V-bar, then it's merged with a DP to form a
VP. The resulting VP is then merged with an abstract causative light verb o, as this light verb is affixal in nature (and so a
...(text missing))
assigned the theta-role of agent by the causative light verb) to form the complex vp. This vp then merges with an abstract
Tense affix to form a T-bar and the subject raises into spec-TP to check its nominative case.

Ergative predicates: Verbs that can be used either as three-place predicates or as two -place predicates . The DP which
immediately follows the verb in the three-place structure functions as the subject in the two-place structure. They both
play the same theta-role.

ex. [He rolled the ball down the hill.] [The ball rolled down the hill.]
agent theme goal theme

This analysis would be compatible with UTAH, since in both the THEME argument would originate as the subject and
specifier of the VP headed by the lexical verb roll, because UTAH claims that two arguments which fulfill the same
thematic function with respect to a given predicate must occupy the same underlying position in the syntax,

Some ergative verbs: roll - f ¡11 - brake - withdraw - move - close

Adverbs like "gently" may occupy two different positions in sentences:

We gently rolled the ball down the hill" VS "We rolled the balI gently down the hill."
These different positions occupied by the adverb reflect a subtle meaning difference, one means that the action which
initiated the rolling motion was gently, whereas the other means that the rolling motion itself was gentle.
But not all adverbs can occupy different positions in grammatical sentences. If we analyse the adverb position in
sentences
like:
"He had deliberately rolled the ball down the hill"
"He had rolled the ball deliberately down the hill"
We find out that adverbs like deliberately are strictly vp adverbs because by virtue of its meaning, they can only be an
adjunct to a projection of an agentive verb and the light verb is causative verb with an agentive subject. On the other hand
Adverbs such as perfectly can function only as VP-adverbs.

Transitive phrasals: In this type of structures the adverbial particles optionally adjoin to the verb, that's why we can
have grammatical sentences such as:
They turn down the offer". and "They turn the offer down".
In the first, the particle down optionally adjoins to the verb turned, forming the complex verb turned down, which adjoins
to the light verb. In the second down remains in situ.
The VP shell analysis enables us to provide a principled account of the two positions which can be occupied by prepositional
particles.

V+DP+PP These verbs can't be used intransitively so they are not ergatives but they take two complements so the VP
shell analysis is plausible. We may say that they are essentially affixal in nature (and so must adjoin to the agentive light
verb) and that they have a strong causative feature which has to be checked by adjunction to an abstract light verb. We
may also say that they are obligatory transitive verbs (and so has to check objective case) and hence can occur in this
structures (VP shell analysis) where they are raised into a position where they can check the objective case of the
immediately following DP.

ex. "They loaded [the truck] [with hay]"

"He gave [no explanations] [to his friends.]"
"They took [everything] [from her"]

In this type of structures we find that VP adverbs can be positioned either before or after the verb or between its two
Complements, it can adjoin to v-bar or V-bar.

They carefully loaded the truck with hay." OR "They loaded the truck carefully with hay,"

Some V+DP+PP verbs; take -load - give -blame -assure - hand - bring

Ditransitive verbs: verbs which take two DP objects. (The lst DP is said to be the indirect object of the verb and the 2nd its
direct object.)

ex. " The will get the teacher a present"

DP DP
"Could you pass me the salt?"
DP DP

i. Resultative predicates: they show the result of a process in that sth becomes sth.

ex. "They painted the house pink."

DP A
"The acid turned the litmus paper green."
DP A

j. Three place predicates with clausal complements: verbs which take PP and CP complements.

ex. " He remarked to her that the Senators should leave."

PP CP

"He agreed with her that Peter was incurable."

PP CP
s om e ve r b s of th is t yp e : r em a rk - su g g e st - co n c lu d e - le a r n a gr e e
Str uctur es wit h im pers on al "it" + ver b +to sb y + that c la us e: Verb s which tak e im p erso na l "it " as the ir s ubject. W e ma y
also find: it + verb + sby + clause (It strikes me that.........)

ex. "It seems to me that Cindy was taking him for a rude."
PP CP

5ome verbs that we may find in this structure: seem - occur - appear

k. Three-place predicates: verb + DP + clausal complement: Verbs which take DP and CP complements.

ex. "He convinced me that he was right."

DP CP

some ver bs of t his type are : sat isfy - remin d - assu re -te ll -con vi nce -wa rn

l. Object-control predicates: verbs that take a DP object and an infinitive complement with PRO, being the PRO subject of
he infinitive controlled by the DP object of the verb.

ex. "He persuaded DP [me] TP[ to PRO take syntax.]"

some verbs of this type are: decide - persuade - ask - tell -advise -remind

These predicates differ from ECM predicates in that they have different semantic properties: in the structure analysed
above me is an argument of persuade whereas if we replace persuade by expect, me is not an argument of expect. Object-
control predicates impose restrictions on the choice of nominals following them, requiring it to be a rational entity. The
nominal following the object control predicated is a an EXPFRIENCER (they can be associated with the adverb personally).
ECM verbs can be follow by idiomatic expressions like the fur to fly or the shit to hit the fan, or by expletive there. They
check the objective-case of the objective subject in an infinitival clause (The objective subject is case-marked outside the
clause.)

ECM verbs: expect - consider - like - be keen for - believe (use actively) - make out (They are not analysed with the VP shell
analysis)

O. Monotransitive predicates: two-place predicates with a ditransitive counterpart. If we adopt UTAH , we analyse these
verbs in this way so as the DP complement bears the same thematic role ¡n both Structures .(THEME)

ex. "He read the letter." and "He read me the letter" (Ditran.)
DP / THEME DP / THEME

Some monotransitive predicates don't have a ditransitive counterpart. In this case the light verb has a performative
sense.
ex. "He hit the ball."

1. Unerqative predicates: intransitive verbs with, agentive subject but not direct object. These verbs are denominal (i.e
derived from the incorporation of a noun to an abstract verb o), Some of them allow to-phrase PP complements.

ex. "He may lie to

you." "He may
protest"

Some verbs of this type are: lunch - fuss -fish - party - guess - overdose - golf. The one's which allow to-phrase PP
complements are: protest - lie -complain .

2.Unaccusative predicates: verbs like come which allow a postverbal subject, and whose apparent subject originates in VP
ather than vp. The light verb here is eventive.

Characteristics: unaccusative subjects originate as complements and in expletive structures they remain in situ; they
have ion agentive subjects; they may have post verbal subjects (¡.e. in child language, in unaccusative imperatives in
Belfast dialects); auxiliary "be" in earlier English; adjectival use of perfective participles.

ex: "There carne a cry of anguish from inside." (postverbal subject)

"Leave you now!" (imperative in Belfast dialect)

"Go truck" (child language)

"Is the Duke gone?" (auxiliary "be") "They arrested a man recently returned
from France." ((adjectival use)

some verbs of this type: there + arise - come -appear -occur - stands. Go in the other types.

Chapter 10:

Subject Agreement Projections

Clauses contain three different types of Agreement Phrase.

Split-Inflection hypothesis: it's necessary to posit the existence of a Subject Agreement Phrase (AgrSP) in addition to
a Tense phrase (TP) in order to account for the fact that adverbs like probably (a TP adverb) and floating quantifiers like
all can be positioned either before or after a finite auxiliary. The SpIit-INFL analysis would also enable us to account for
the fact that and adverb positioned after an auxiliary can have scope over (can C-command) the auxiliary, e.g. in a sentence
such as "Gary can apparently lift 100 pounds."

Since auxiliaries like have/be typically inflect for tense and agreement, finite clauses also contain an abstract agreement
morpheme which projects into an agreement phrase. The relevant agreement head occupies a higher position than T,
auxiliaries are generated in T and from there raise to adjoin to the separate agreement head. Subjects raise from
specifíer-vp to the specifier position in the agreement phrase to check their case and agreement features. Since the
agreement relation in question involves subjects it is called AgrSP. Our earlier INFL head will in effect be split into two
different heads: a T head and a AgrS head.

Process: A TP is merged with an AgrS head which projects into AgrSP, a pronoun raises to specifier AgrS (AgrS has strong
specifier-features so subjects always raise to check their case-and agreement -feature) to check its nominative case and
he auxiliary raises from T to adjoin to AgrS (thereby enabling it to check its agreement properties).

Evidence:

Scrambling in Early English -^ in sentences like: "The king your mote did see.", the DP your moter has adjoined to TP, while
the subject the king is in spec-AgrSP.

Syntax of the case and agreement properties of subjects and auxiliaries in Belfast English -> in which nominative
subjects are in spec-AgrSP and any auxiliary which checks the agreement properties of the subject is in AgrS (and so can
move to C in questions), whereas objective subjects are in spec-TP and any associated auxiliary is in T, and (by virtue of
lacking agreement properties) can't move through AgrS to C in questions.

Claims that objective DPs raise to spec-AgrOP in order to check their objective case features and their object agreement-
features under spec-head agreement with AgrO.
This analysis enables us to provide a unified account of case- and agreement-checking, in which all case - and agreement
features are checked under a spec-head relation between a functional head and its specifier.

Process: a direct object DP raises to spec-AgrOP and its associated verb adjoins to AgrO in order to check objective case
the verb subsequently raising still further to adjoin to v)

Evidence:

Systematic differences between the position of CP complements and DP complements -»

T sentences such as "He reported to the police that there had been a robbery" and
 "He reported the robbery to the police"
The DP and CP play the same thematic role as the THEME of reported. So they must originate in the same position following
UTAH.
DP objects are postverbal whereas CP complements are clause-final.
DP complements carry objective case and hence have to be raise to Spec-AgrOP for case-checking; by contrast that-clauses
don't carry case, so they don't move for case-checking purposes and remain in situ.

Position of adverbs -> adverbs merge with maximal projections so to account for the grammatical sentences: "He plays
chess well" here well merges with the VP play chess, then the verb adjoins to AgrO and the DP raises from complement
position to spec-AgrOP to check the objective case feature. Then the analysis continues with v', vp, T', TP, AgrS' and ends
in AgrSP. We may say that verbs are immediately adjacent to their objects and can't be separated by an intervening
adverb.

Prepositional particles position -> preposition particle can occupy three different positions: He
poured the whisky slowly out." He poured the whisky out slowly." He poured out the whisky
slowly."

We may say that in transitive structures objective DPs move to spec-AgrOp and verbs move through AgrO to adjoin to v,
he particle can remain in situ, can be incorporated into the verb and then be excorporated out of the V in AgrO position or
the pied-piped along with it. The different positions of the particle don't interfere in the checking of the DP objective-
feature.